/edu/ - Education

I think he is great even though his books dont go as deep as other historians may
Some works i recommend
Blackshirt and Reds, To destroy a nation the attack on yugoslavia, Against empire, Killing Caesar, Inventing reality

You can start by watching some videos from him on youtube
https://youtu.be/25Kxoa--ndI

Absolutely yes. He's got unique perspectives and he's passionate about foreign policy. Wrote interesting books about wars

>>15432
>>15433
>>15435
No he's not, he's a retard, he unironically thinks that rome under caesar was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

<marxist
<westoid
<20th century writer
No

>>15436
>1 single thing I disagree with destroys all other valuable contribution.

Dumb

And not even going to give benefit of doubt of your claim since haven't looked into what he said on that

>>15436
He never stated that

>>15436
He also thinks communism is a state of affairs to be established, no wonder he's loved by dengoid scum

>>15440
one of his best quotes
Thx for contributing

>>15439
>>15438
You cunts don't even read the shit you defend
>Without too much overreaching, we might say Caesar’s reign can be called a dictatorship of the proletarii the poor propertyless citizens of Rome, an instance of ruling autocratically against plutocracy on behalf of the citizenry’s substantive interests.
- Parenti, THE ASSASSINATION OF JULIUS CAESAR: A People’s History of Ancient Rome

This actually is a really good way to sum up what kind of person parenti is, he's a demagogue who primarily just spews rhetoric in blind defence of AE"S", which boils down to 'socialism is when good things happen'. So it's no wonder he thinks a DotP is when some dude who is a literal dictator does some reforms people like. His texts and lectures, particularly his yellow lecture and Blackshirts and Reds are just how middle class dregs who never intend to take marxism or communism seriously, flirt with socialism. To know he completely deviates from Marx would require you to be familiar with Marx in the first place, which isn't the case when most of his audience who are probably former reformists who think socialism is when the state builds infrastructure or healthcare or whatever.

I also like the part in Pure Socialism vs. Siege Socialism where he brags about how leaders of "existing communist" countries were modest compared to capitalists, then goes on to bring up how they had limousines like every other world leader.

He's a complete hack and the only people that take him seriously are those who aren't actually interested in marxism and communism

>>15442
Post the full page

>>15443
Is him explicitly calling Caesars rome a dotp not enough for you? If you want to read the full text you can come look in my trash, that's the last place i saw it.

>>15444
you havent read the book have you?
You just searched up that one specific qote to misrepresent what he is saying.
And you even misunderstand that one in the second part of that sentence he makes very clear what he means and that isnt a DOTP

>>15445
I read it and remembered him calling Caesars rome a dictatorship of the proleteriat. He explicitly calls it that and the fact that you point out the latter half of the sentence proves the point i make here >>15442 that to him and to the liberals who follow him, socialism is just when the state does something that can be perceived as beneficial.

>>15446
post the full context, if he goes on to say 'but heres why it isnt a DOTP' when he said 'we *might* say' then you are willfully being retarded

>>15447
You can't even slightly call Caesars rome a dotp, the fact he brings it up and literally uses the "state does good thing" argument says everything about what he thinks socialism is especially when he uses that same line of thinking elsewhere.

>>15446
In this work he describes different instances of class struggle in ancient rome with different classes having different interests and popular leaders arising. When he says
>Without too much overreaching, we might say Caesar’s reign can be called a dictatorship of the proletarii the poor propertyless citizens of Rome
He doesnt mean a socialist Dictatorship which he makes clear here
>an instance of ruling autocratically against plutocracy on behalf of the citizenry’s substantive interests.
What he means is not a dictatorship of the proletariat in the classical sense but a literal dictatorship but with a lot of popular support

>>15448
you have a extrmely simple way of seeing things
The whole point of this book is to describe class struggle in ancient times its not about socialism but about describing different classes there objective interests and the way they fought with each other

>>15448
I dont care about your analysis of it without the full context of it being posted

>>15432
Absolutely
He's really good at dispensing with all that boring economic "theory" shit (no one cares) and focusing on the important part of socialism - defending enemies of American foreign policy

>>15449
>What he means is not a dictatorship of the proletariat in the classical sense but a literal dictatorship but with a lot of popular support
Motherfucker he explicitly calls it dictatorship of the proletariat, not just a rule with popular support, if that is a dot then elections wit a 50% win rate are a dotp
>>15450
>The whole point of this book is to describe class struggle in ancient times its not about socialism but about describing different classes there objective interests and the way they fought with each other
He does a poor job of that too, Caesar didn't even work towards the propertyless citizenry like parenti claims, his colonies were for discharged soldiers rather than the poor and he did not redistribute land like expected. If you want a analysis of ancient rome then you might look up what marx said about it
>As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman Civil Wars, in the original Greek text. A very valuable book. The chap is an Egyptian by birth. Schlosser says he has "no soul," probably because he goes to the roots of the material basis for these civil wars. Spartacus is revealed as the most splendid fellow in the whole of ancient history. Great general (no Garibaldi), noble character, real representative of the ancient proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/letters/61_02_27-abs.htm

>>15442
This is a pretty ironic thing to say when you go on to refuse to discuss a single page of context for the quote you picked

>>15454
The context is literally just talking about Caesar making reforms against the optimates and using this to call it a dotp. It is quite literally in the same vein as "socialism is when the state does good thing" argument he uses for all of his texts and talks.

>>15455
When you read the whole page it becomes very clear that his mean point is class interests and that things have class character and juding it from different standpoints has different conclusions.
>>15453
>He does a poor job of that too, Caesar didn't even work towards the propertyless citizenry like parenti claims
This is the much more interesting take.
I heard that this book was critized and some things he stated may not be true. That would be a much more interesting and fruitful discussion

>>15457
>When you read the whole page it becomes very clear that his mean point is class interests and that things have class character and juding it from different standpoints has different conclusions.
That's quite alot of words that say literally nothing.
> That would be a much more interesting and fruitful discussion
That's not the point of this thread, this thread is what value parentis works have, his work doesn't have any value, he's a hack who's audience is liberals who think reformism and "good" government policies are what constitute socialism. If you want to find out about the history of Rome then there are a wealth of sources out there for you to read including one that me and marx bring up here >>15453

>>15457
I'd heard in a recent interview with Michael Hudson that Caesar was pro debt-forgiveness.

>>15458
You're complaining, but you're not putting forward alternatives.

>>15460
Alternatives to what?

>>15461
Reading recommendations. Books which cover the same topics which Parenti covers.

>>15462
I already gave one, the civil wars by appian

>>15453
>his colonies were for discharged soldiers rather than the poor
Soldiers in the Roman army post-Marian reforms were usually landless citizens. That's why land was part of their pension.

>>15464
Discharged soldiers aren't the poor citizenry in roman cities that Caesar promised land to and he largely left the property of the nobility untouched but this is besides th point of this thread which i answered hours ago, that being that parenti has no value since he's a hack.

>>15465
>Discharged soldiers aren't the poor citizenry in roman cities that Caesar promised land to
Yes they are, the army was composed of this exact demographic.
>he largely left the property of the nobility untouched
Then why did they hate him so much?

Also, you seem to be equating a DotP with socialism, but these are not the same thing. A state which rules in the interests of a particular class by definition a dictatorship of that class. Not only that, but you're equating the ancient Roman proletarii with the modern capitalist proletariat, but the equivalence of these two things is questionable. You're essentially extrapolating from what is actually a pretty measured statement (that Caesar's government ruled in the interests of the proletaii) to try to strawman Parenti into claiming something he doesn't.

>>15463
>I already gave one, the civil wars by appian
In the original Greek anon, how about a summary?

>>15466
>Yes they are, the army was composed of this exact demographic.
That's not the demographic he claimed to champion, he specifically claimed to be serving the poor in the cities who were jobless, the soldiers in legions were not in rome looking for work they were in the army.
>Then why did they hate him so much?
Because he was using the poor as a support base which put him in conflict with the optimates yet despite that he continually gave colonies to his legions rather than the poor and the property of the nobility was largely untouched. His supporters expected that he would continue the legacy of the Gracchii, of Marius, of Cinna, and of Catalinus yet he did not which caused his supporters (who supported him for decades and who waged a years long civil war under him) to kill him while his 2nd in command looked the other way.
>A state which rules in the interests of a particular class by definition a dictatorship of that class.
No it's not, any state can claim to rule in the interest of a class but a dotp is where political; power is held by the proletariat, see the Petrograd soviet in russia which stopped the kerensky coup. The ancient proletariat were not in control of rome and Caesar claiming to serve their interests does not turn it into a dotp either.
> you're equating the ancient Roman proletarii with the modern capitalist proletariat
Because they're the same and Marx used the same term to refer to the same class in both epoch.
> The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/preface.htm
Not to mention that the word 'Proletariat" is literally a latin term so ofc it comes from the ancient class.
> You're essentially extrapolating from what is actually a pretty measured statement
It's not a measured statement, from a historical view Caesar did not work to the interest of the proleteriat and his examples of him working to their interest is literally just him passing legislative reforms.
> to try to strawman Parenti into claiming something he doesn't.
He explicitly calls it a dotp and uses a state practicing "good policies" as evidence, the same argument he uses when defending any "AES" state. Quite literally just "socialism is when the government does shit"
>>15467
Shove a live grenade in your mouth

>>15468
>Because he was using the poor as a support base which put him in conflict with the optimates
How did it put him in conflict with them if he wasn't actually doing anything to harm their interests?
>No it's not, any state can claim to rule in the interest of a class but a dotp is where political; power is held by the proletariat
So are right wing military juntas in Latin America not dictatorships of the bourgeoisie? After all they didn't directly control the state, the military did.
> The Roman proletariat lived at the expense of society, while modern society lives at the expense of the proletariat.
How is that not a fundamental difference in their position in the relations of production though? He's literally saying that their relationship to the social order is the reverse of that of the capitalist proletariat.
>examples of him working to their interest is literally just him passing legislative reforms
If seizing power in a coup/civil war and implementing policies which serve the interests of the proletariat is not a DotP, then what is?
>Quite literally just "socialism is when the government does shit"
I've never heard him say anything like that. His defences of AES is to highlight how badly distorted the image of these states has been, how they actually did tremendous good for the working classes of those countries and actually accomplished much of what they promised. In a political environment where many supposed socialists uncritically accept everything the bourgeoisie said about AES, this was sorely needed. I'm not aware of any statement he's made abour what socialism is or isnt. Iirc he's even said in lectures that he's less interested in the semantics of the issue, and more interested in the actual record of the only alternative to the Western model to exist thus far.

>>15455

*proletarii* anon, he isnt literally calling it a working class revolution, just that the upper class (temporarly and for cynical reasons) acted in the working classes interests, for a while.

>>15470
like you're literally engaging in next level autist symantics here, hes a marxist; hes going to use marxist terminology in offhand sometimes, like here where hes twisting the conception into a roman related pun that flew completely over your head.

>>15440
lol imagine that being your takeaway from that quote

He is literally saying that the pure socialists are wrong for thinking socialism is when you push a button and establish a communist mode of production, whereas he supports the real movement that is most successful (on its way to abolishing the present state of things). Agree or disagree in part or in whole, but holy shit try to actually comprehend what you're reading first.

None of you retards are presenting an alternative to Parenti smh

>>15453
>As a relaxation in the evenings I have been reading Appian on the Roman Civil Wars, in the original Greek text
He died before he could teach us 😔

>>15432
Blackshirts and reds is super good but don't look too deep into the sources, capitalists and lolbertarians use them to discredit the work

no, he's a pseud. what are you interested in specifically about his work? he's a polemical writer, he's not wrong about things generally, he's just not a serious writer or thinker, he has no method.

>>15440
Except Parenti has gone out of his way to support Tibetan independence via socialist revolution and has repeatedly criticised China as well as the Bolsheviks.

He's far from the dengist that people attribute him as.

>>15477
>He's far from the dengist that people attribute him as.
literally who? just this one guy? I allways had the perception that he is a tolerant kind of ML or Marxist. His job isn't arguing specific policy or class dynamics in a line struggle, his forte is dispelling capitalist lies about socialist projects and distortions of history as well as sharing the words of these revolutionaries and offering their perspective.

>>15478
Maybe not arguing specific policy, but the man certainly critiques policy while alluding to something better- for example, he's aware Tibet was a fucked theocracy, but he has also pointed out that it is being heavily exploited by China in general, and he believes that advocating for an independent tibet is far from the socialist line. He will criticise socialist movements, and policies- even though he supported Yugoslavia, he also knew that their policy relating to IMF loans was a dumb move- likewise, he's critical of what China is doing to Tibet and argues that people calling for Tibetan independence aren't necessarily wrong, but it shouldn't be an independant Tibet with the DaLai Llama put back in power.

https://redsails.org/friendly-feudalism/

>In the 1990s, the Han, the ethnic group comprising over 95 percent of China’s immense population, began moving in substantial numbers into Tibet. On the streets of Lhasa and Shigatse, signs of Han colonization are readily visible. Chinese run the factories and many of the shops and vending stalls. Tall office buildings and large shopping centers have been built with funds that might have been better spent on water treatment plants and housing. Chinese cadres in Tibet too often view their Tibetan neighbors as backward and lazy, in need of economic development and “patriotic education.” During the 1990s Tibetan government employees suspected of harboring nationalist sympathies were purged from office, and campaigns were once again launched to discredit the Dalai Lama. Individual Tibetans reportedly were subjected to arrest, imprisonment, and forced labor for carrying out separatist activities and engaging in “political subversion.” Some were held in administrative detention without adequate food, water, and blankets, subjected to threats, beatings, and other mistreatment. [45]

>Tibetan history, culture, and certainly religion are slighted in schools. Teaching materials, though translated into Tibetan, focus mainly on Chinese history and culture. Chinese family planning regulations allow a three-child limit for Tibetan families. (There is only a one-child limit for Han families throughout China, and a two-child limit for rural Han families whose first child is a girl.) If a Tibetan couple goes over the three-child limit, the excess children can be denied subsidized daycare, health care, housing, and education. These penalties have been enforced irregularly and vary by district

>Many ordinary Tibetans want the Dalai Lama back in their country, but it appears that relatively few want a return to the social order he represented. A 1999 story in the Washington Post notes that the Dalai Lama continues to be revered in Tibet, but

<…few Tibetans would welcome a return of the corrupt aristocratic clans that fled with him in 1959 and that comprise the bulk of his advisers. Many Tibetan farmers, for example, have no interest in surrendering the land they gained during China’s land reform to the clans. Tibet’s former slaves say they, too, don’t want their former masters to return to power. “I’ve already lived that life once before,” said Wangchuk, a 67-year-old former slave who was wearing his best clothes for his yearly pilgrimage to Shigatse, one of the holiest sites of Tibetan Buddhism. He said he worshipped the Dalai Lama, but added, “I may not be free under Chinese communism, but I am better off than when I was a slave.”

>One common complaint among Buddhist followers in the West is that Tibet’s religious culture is being undermined by the Chinese occupation. To some extent this seems to be the case. Many of the monasteries are closed, and much of the theocracy seems to have passed into history. Whether Chinese rule has brought betterment or disaster is not the central issue here. The question is what kind of country was old Tibet. What I am disputing is the supposedly pristine spiritual nature of that pre-invasion culture. We can advocate religious freedom and independence for a new Tibet without having to embrace the mythology about old Tibet. Tibetan feudalism was cloaked in Buddhism, but the two are not to be equated. In reality, old Tibet was not a Paradise Lost. It was a retrograde repressive theocracy of extreme privilege and poverty, a long way from Shangri-La.

>Finally, let it be said that if Tibet’s future is to be positioned somewhere within China’s emerging free-market paradise, then this does not bode well for the Tibetans. China boasts a dazzling 8 percent economic growth rate and is emerging as one of the world’s greatest industrial powers. But with economic growth has come an ever deepening gulf between rich and poor. Most Chinese live close to the poverty level or well under it, while a small group of newly brooded capitalists profit hugely in collusion with shady officials. Regional bureaucrats milk the country dry, extorting graft from the populace and looting local treasuries. Land grabbing in cities and countryside by avaricious developers and corrupt officials at the expense of the populace are almost everyday occurrences. Tens of thousands of grassroot protests and disturbances have erupted across the country, usually to be met with unforgiving police force. Corruption is so prevalent, reaching into so many places, that even the normally complacent national leadership was forced to take notice and began moving against it in late 2006.

>If China is the great success story of speedy free market development, and is to be the model and inspiration for Tibet’s future, then old feudal Tibet indeed may start looking a lot better than it actually was.

Why should I care what Parenti has to say?

>>15481
i dunno, why should i answer your question?

>>15462
>>15461
>>15460
The greatest Marxist work on the subject of class struggle in the Roman period is G. E. M. de Ste. Croix's "The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World", which is superior to Parenti's book because it is not primarily a study of personalities and contains the rigorous detail necessary to make a high-level analysis of the ancient slave mode of production. And it's a useful point of comparison for non-Marxist works of economic history because he takes over a hundred pages to explain the Marxist theory of class, how it applies to the ancient world, how it compares to competing theories of class and non-class explanations of social hierarchy. In this way De Ste. Croix successfully defended historical materialism as the best historiographical framework for economic and social history.
>>15453
>He does a poor job of that too, Caesar didn't even work towards the propertyless citizenry like parenti claims
I think that one indication that Parenti's analysis deviates from historical materialism is in his championing of the populares like the Gracchi brothers & Caesar. This is in contrast to De Ste. Croix who is unconcerned with these men as personalities and rather sees them as agents of social forces which spring from class struggle (1). Attached are two excerpts that illustrate the difference between the two approaches. Parenti's book is not without nuance and it does not deserve to be interpreted as a wholesale defense of Caesar (2); the purpose of the book is to be a corrective against the works of bourgeois history that uncritically utilize ancient aristocratic sources. This isn't a novel contribution because Marxist historians and bourgeois historians themselves (!) have already done so in exhaustive detail. The problem with the book is that it is framed as a study on the person of Caesar while not really being one; the net effect is to confuse and distract from more fruitful analysis and this is made evident by the way in which the book has been received in this thread and elsewhere. The two conclusions that can be drawn from the book are that the populares broadly represented the interest of the common people and that Caesar was seeking to stabilize and reform the Republic instead of attempting to replace it with personal rule. Only the latter conclusion is controversial in modern bourgeois historiography (and rightfully so) and neither conclusion is useful for a materialist understanding of history.

(1) The major point here is that De Ste. Croix, like Marx and unlike Parenti, understands that the class struggle in ancient Rome was played out between the free poor on the one hand and the ruling nobility on the other - to the *exclusion* of the great mass of slaves which performed most useful labor in that society. Parenti's book isn't much of a "people's history" for this reason.
(2) To be clear, Parenti glosses over Caesar's expansion of the Roman machine of conquest and enslavement and he deploys quite a lot of speculation in his apology for Caesar. There are certain parts where he hints that his thesis isn't entirely supported by the evidence but this doesn't stop him from advancing it, something which borders on dishonesty.

>>15432
Im reading Blackshirts and Reds and its a huge fucking dissapointment.